6.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1954 and 1945 respectively and live in Banloc.
7.  S.C. and his father lent money to the applicants, who secured the loans with their apartments located in Timişoara.
8.  The applicants concluded sale contracts of their apartments with S.C. on 10 October 1995, 9 February 1996 and 15 July 1996 respectively.
9.  The three applicants lodged criminal complaints of abuse of trust (abuz de încredere) and false statements (fals in declaraţii) against S.C. and his father on 14 October 1996, 12 November 1996 and 30 September 1997 respectively. They stated that their intention had been to secure the loan agreements, and not to sell their apartments.
10.  On 23 October 1997 all the criminal complaints were joined in a single file and sent to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal.
11.  On 4, 5 and 7 November 1997 the applicants joined civil complaints to the criminal proceedings.
12.  On 30 May 1999 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against S.C. and his father.
13.  The applicants lodged a further complaint with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice. It was allowed by a decision of 15 May 2002 and the file was remitted to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal in order to continue the investigation. The decision stated that new evidence should be adduced in order to clarify the applicants’ allegations.
14.  On 28 May 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal again decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against S.C. and his father. On 11 August 2003 this decision was upheld by the chief prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.
15.  The applicants lodged a complaint with the Timişoara District Court against the said decision on the basis of Article 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).
16.  By a judgment of 19 March 2004, the court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Timişoara Court of Appeal.
17.  On 31 March 2004 the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint on the grounds that S.C. and his father had not committed an offence.
18.  An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants with the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 10 February 2005 was allowed. The court held that the evidence in the file was not sufficient to establish whether the complaint was well-founded and remitted the file to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation.
19.  On 30 September 2005 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the statutory time-limit for criminal liability had expired in respect of all the alleged crimes. It held that the special limitation period was seven years and six months and that it had started running on the date when the sale contracts had been signed (namely on 10 October 1995, 9 February 1996 and 15 July 1996). It gave no decision in respect of the civil complaints.
20.  It appears from the material submitted by the parties that the applicants did not lodge a complaint against the decision of 30 September 2005.
21.  On 18 November 1996 the first applicant lodged a civil action against S.C. seeking the rescission of the sale contract of her apartment. She claimed that she had been misled by the fraudulent behaviour of S.C. that made her believe that they had concluded a contract securing the loan, and not a sale contract. S.C. lodged a counterclaim requesting her to vacate the apartment.
22.  By a judgment delivered on 3 March 1997, the Timişoara District Court dismissed the action on the grounds that the first applicant was aware of the purpose of the contract as she had signed it in the presence of a public notary.
23.  On 11 December 1997 the Timiş County Court allowed an appeal lodged by the first applicant. It set aside the judgment and remitted the file to the court of first instance, holding that the court had not thoroughly analysed the evidence adduced by the parties.
24.  On 10 March 1999 the Timişoara District Court delivered a new judgment on the merits. It allowed the first applicant’s action, holding that the applicant had had no intention of concluding a sale contract but had sought instead to secure a loan agreement.
25.  On 22 December 1999 the Timiş County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by S.C as unfounded.
26.  On 7 November 2000 the Timişoara Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by S.C., set aside the judgment of 10 March 1999 and the decision of 22 December 1999, and delivered a final judgment on the merits. It dismissed the first applicant’s action and allowed the counterclaim ordering the first applicant to vacate the apartment.
27.  On 24 February 1997 S.C. brought an action against the second applicant seeking her eviction from the apartment that he had bought on 15 July 1996.
28.  On 31 March 1997 the Timişoara District Court allowed the action ordering the eviction of the second applicant.
29.  On 22 December 1997 the Timiş County Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the second applicant on the grounds that she had not submitted the reasons for her appeal within the statutory time‑limit.
30.  On 11 June 1998 the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed as unfounded an appeal on points of law lodged by the second applicant.
31.  On the basis of a judgment delivered by the Timişoara District Court on 24 June 1996, the third applicant was evicted from the apartment which she had sold to S.C. Although duly summoned to attend the eviction proceedings initiated against her, the third applicant was not present at the proceedings. She did not lodge an appeal against the judgment of 24 June 1996.